First Look at the Pathfinder Playtest

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Welcome to the next evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!

Just shy of 10 years ago, on March 18th, 2008, we asked you to take a bold step with us and download the Alpha Playtest PDF for Pathfinder First Edition. Over the past decade, we've learned a lot about the game and the people who play it. We've talked with you on forums, we've gamed with you at conventions, and we've watched you play online and in person at countless venues. We went from updating mechanics to inventing new ones, adding a breadth of options to the game and making the system truly our own. We've made mistakes, and we've had huge triumphs. Now it is time to take all of that knowledge and make the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game even better.

By now, you've probably read all about the upcoming launch of the Playtest version of the game set to release on August 2nd, 2018 (but just in case you haven't, click here). In the weeks and months leading up to that release, we are going give you an in-depth look at this game, previewing all 12 of the classes and examining many of the most fundamental changes to the game. Of course, that is a long time to wait to get a complete picture, so I wanted to take this opportunity to give you insight into the game, how it works, and why we made the changes that we made. We will be covering these in much more detail later, but we thought it might be useful to give a general overview right now.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

New, but the Same

Our first goal was to make Pathfinder Second Edition feel just like the game you know and love. That means that as a player, you need to be able to make the choices that allow you to build the character you want to play. Similarly, as a Game Master, you need to have the tools and the support to tell the story you want to tell. The rules that make up the game have to fundamentally still fill the same role they did before, even if some of the mechanics behind them are different.

Building a Character

It's worth taking a moment to talk about how characters are built, because we spent a lot of time making this process smoother and more intuitive. You start by selecting your ancestry (which used to be called race), figuring out where you came from and what sorts of basic statistics you have. Next you decide on your background, representing how you were raised and what you did before taking up the life of an adventurer. Finally, you select your class, the profession you have dedicated yourself to as an intrepid explorer. Each one of these choices is very important, modifying your starting ability scores, giving you starting proficiencies and class skills, and opening up entire feat chains tailored to your character.

After making the big choices that define your character, you have a variety of smaller choices to make, including assigning skill proficiencies, picking an ancestry feat, buying gear, and deciding on the options presented by your class. Finally, after deciding on all of your choices, the only thing left to do is figure out all of your bonuses, which are now determined by one unified system of proficiency, based on your character's level.

As you go on grand adventures with your character, you will gain experience and eventually level up. Pathfinder characters have exciting and important choices to make every time they gain a level, from selecting new class feats to adding new spells to their repertoires.

Playing the Game

We've made a number of changes to the way the game is played, to clean up the overall flow of play and to add some interesting choices in every part of the story. First up, we have broken play up into three distinct components. Encounter mode is what happens when you are in a fight, measuring time in seconds, each one of which can mean life or death. Exploration mode is measured in minutes and hours, representing travel and investigation, finding traps, decoding ancient runes, or even mingling at the queen's coronation ball. Of all the modes of play, exploration is the most flexible, allowing for easy storytelling and a quick moving narrative. Finally, the downtime mode happens when your characters are back in town, or relative safety, allowing them to retrain abilities, practice a trade, lead an organization, craft items, or recuperate from wounds. Downtime is measured in days, generally allowing time to flow by in an instant.

Most of the game happens in exploration or encounter mode, with the two types of play flowing easily from one to the other. In fact, exploration mode can have a big impact on how combat begins, determining what you roll for your initiative. In a group of four exploring a dungeon, two characters might have their weapons ready, keeping an eye out for danger. Another might be skulking ahead, keeping to the shadows, while the fourth is looking for magic. If combat begins, the first two begin with their weapons drawn, ready for a fight, and they roll Perception for their initiative. The skulking character rolls Stealth for initiative, giving them a chance to hide before the fight even begins. The final adventurer rolls Perception for initiative, but also gains some insight as to whether or not there is magic in the room.

After initiative is sorted out and it's your turn to act, you get to take three actions on your turn, in any combination. Gone are different types of actions, which can slow down play and add confusion at the table. Instead, most things, like moving, attacking, or drawing a weapon, take just one action, meaning that you can attack more than once in a single turn! Each attack after the first takes a penalty, but you still have a chance to score a hit. In Pathfinder Second Edition, most spells take two actions to cast, but there are some that take only one. Magic missile, for example, can be cast using from one to three actions, giving you an additional missile for each action you spend on casting it!

Between turns, each character also has one reaction they can take to interrupt other actions. The fighter, for example, has the ability to take an attack of opportunity if a foe tries to move past or its defenses are down. Many classes and monsters have different things they can do with their reactions, making each combat a little bit less predictable and a lot more exciting. Cast a fire spell near a red dragon, for example, and you might just find it takes control of your magic, roasting you and your friends instead of the intended target!

Monsters and Treasure

The changes to the game are happening on both sides of the GM screen. Monsters, traps, and magic items have all gotten significant revisions.

First off, monsters are a lot easier to design. We've moved away from strict monster construction formulas based off type and Hit Dice. Instead, we start by deciding on the creature's rough level and role in the game, then select statistics that make it a balanced and appropriate part of the game. Two 7th-level creatures might have different statistics, allowing them to play differently at the table, despite both being appropriate challenges for characters of that level.

This also makes it easier for us to present monsters, giving us more space to include special abilities and actions that really make a monster unique. Take the fearsome tyrannosaurus, for example; if this terrifying dinosaur gets you in its jaws, it can take an action to fling you up to 20 feet through the air, dealing tremendous damage to you in the process!

Hazards are now a more important part of the game, from rangers creating snares to traps that you have to actively fight against if you want to survive. Poisons, curses, and diseases are a far more serious problem to deal with, having varied effects that can cause serious penalties, or even death.

Of all of the systems that Game Masters interact with, magic items are one of the most important, so we spent extra time ensuring that they are interesting and fun. First and foremost, we have taken significant steps to allow characters to carry the items they want, instead of the items that they feel they must have to succeed. Good armor and a powerful weapon are still critical to the game, but you no longer have to carry a host of other smaller trinkets to boost up your saving throws or ability scores. Instead, you find and make the magic items that grant you cool new things to do during play, giving you the edge against all of the monsters intent on making you into their next meal.

We can't wait until you find your first +1 longsword to see what it can do!

What's Next?

There are a lot of things we are excited to show off, so many in fact that we have to pace ourselves. First off, if you want to hear the game in action right now, we've recorded a special podcast with the folks from the Glass Cannon Network, converting the original Pathfinder First Edition Module, Crypt of the Everflame, to the new edition. Head on over to their site and listen to the first part of this adventure now!

Stop by tomorrow for the first blog taking an in-depth look at Pathfinder Second Edition, starting off with the new system for taking actions, then visit us again on Friday for an exploration of the Glass Cannon game, exploring some of its spoilers in detail!

We Need You!

All of us at Paizo want to take a moment to thank you, the fans, players, and game masters that have made this exciting journey a possibility. It's been a wild ride for the past decade, and speaking personally, I could not be more excited for where we are heading. But, as I am sure you've heard a number of times already, we cannot make this game without you, without your feedback and passion for the game. Thank you for coming with us on this adventure, thank you for contributing to our community, and thank you for playing Pathfinder.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
601 to 650 of 1,608 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Gondolin wrote:

Late comer to this thread and sorry if this is a repeat question...

Will this be retro-compatible with version 1, or is all my stuff now useless à la D&D 3.5 to 4 a few years back.?

It sounds like no. But that you can attempt to homebrew things like the older content.

Listen to the Glass Cannon podcast, Buhlman is converting Crypt of the Everflame on the fly so that tells me all the APs and adventures and Bestiaries are going to still be usable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Kain Gallant wrote:

Random thought: I hope Dex doesn't get applied tomelee damage without an additional cost. Otherwise, what's the point to Strength characters?

Heck, why stop there? Apply Int to melee damage for free! Wis to melee damage! For no justification other than this is what my class specializes in, so I should get to deal damage with it!

I understand the point you're trying to make, but asking for more leniency for dexterity builds isn't too much to ask for. Strength build characters already have the advantage in that, from the start, they do more damage overall than a dex based character and only get better from there. Ignoring feats and magic items, strength builds can two-hand their weapons in order to get a flat multiplication to their damage modifiers, not to mention have unfettered access to weapons with higher damage dice than virtually anything dexterity builds have access to (greataxes with 1d12 versus a rapier/shortsword with 1d6).

While I believe there should be a prerequisite for dex to damage, it should realistically start and end with Weapon Finesse; no flaming hoops you have to jump through just to get dex to damage with more than a single weapon in one hand while the planets are aligned, gods forbid two weapon fighting. When you have a character idea but the only way to effectively use it is to dig through multiple player companions for specific feats and magic enhancements just so you can come online at level 12, it stops being worth it.

I realize that I came off pretty irritable in my last post. Apologies to all for that, I blame late night tiredness.

I think you and I of are the same mind. Thinking about it, while there should be a prerequisite to allow Dex-based melee damage, it shouldn't be as hard as it is. Spending one feat should be more than enough.

I feel though that Dex-based character get more benefit out of that one stat instead of Str-based. DEXters get benefit to AC, Reflex saves, a lot of skills. STRers only get 2 skills and carrying capacity (and I think only a minority keep stringet checks on encumbrence). So anything that encroaches on the Str benefit of dealing melee damage should be critically examined.

But I could be wrong about that. My group typically veers towards Dex-based PCs for reasons mentioned above, so my view could be pretty skewed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Cont'd:

* Backgrounds -I've only seen these be prescriptive. I disliked how they were implemented in DnD5e. They were bland and sometimes counter-intuitive. Married to the fact your rules will be Golarion-infused, that ins't the most inspiring announcement.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.

But worse than the mechanic itself, is the message sent by its inclusion. Pathfinder players have, for years, been openly derisive of the proficiency mechanic. It's one of the most commonly hated aspects of 5e. Paizo knows this- those discussions happen largely on their boards. But they have decided to completely ignore the fact that PF players despise this mechanic and implement it anyway. This says, in very clear terms, "We are more interested in courting 5e players than in satisfying our existing customers and fanbase. The opinions of our current customers matter less than the potential profit that we think we can get by stealing that element from 5e." I've been a loyal customer and player for 8 years now. I've bought products from them solely to support the corporation because I liked their material. But my opinions are less important than their desire to attract D&D players.

The ironic part? I've said for ages that PF needed a reboot. This is actually the only element of what they've described that I'm particularly unhappy about. But, between that message, and Paizo's established history of ignoring playtest feedback? They've managed to kill my enthusiasm for it rather handily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure how I feel about all this. I'll have to take a look at the play test and make a decision then. If nothing else, I can cannibalize and convert 2E stuff for 1E and continue on. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Kain Gallant wrote:

Here's what I want to see in the 2nd Edition:

5 of your 6 items align closely with the design goals of the new edition.

This increases my optimism, thank you!

A couple of questions for the design team:

1) How much of the PF1 character options and subsystems can be emulated with the PF2 ruleset right out of the box?
This will likely influence how soon I'll convert my current long-term KM campaign as we use almost everything you guys have put out so far, including Mythic. We also use Dreamscarred's Psionics and Path of War, so I hope converting those 3PP options to be compatible with PF2 doesn't encounter big complications.

2) Do you plan on showcasing high-level gameplay in a similar manner as done on the Glass Cannon podcast?
I would love to see how the game plays at that level.

EDIT:
3) Has it been considered to augment combat options by spending additional actions?
Now that combat actions have been changed to 3 general actions, I wonder if we can have options such as "spend 2 actions to deliver a powerful blow" or "spend 2 actions to perform a called shot". I think that could lead to a lot of variety in compbat options.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
nighttree wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
I am severely disappointed in Paizo and a little angry. This is exactly why I left D&D.

I feel exactly the same........

Do we know how long 1st edition will be supported for ?
I hope at least Return of the Runelords is still in 1E rules....I was really looking foreword to it....

Return of the Runelords and the AP after it will be the last ones published for 1e, but they ARE 1st editions APs.Paizo has said they won't publish anything new for 1e starting July/August 2019, not this year. This year is just the playtest.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Works better than everything that came since then" is major hyperbole and just wrong. If it did, nobody would have bothered to move on from 3.5 <_<

Like, I'm actually feeling very mixed here(I have spend a lot of little money I have) for "1e" products, but if nothing else, I guess year in future there will be finite number of them so I can actually buy all of them


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, after a decent night's sleep, it occurred to me that there might be some clues about where this is headed in the Starfinder rules, which I hadn't looked at. And lo and behold, I find these things called "Character Themes" along with an up-front declaration that those who want to stray from the path will be the weakest characters.

I'm done. Not even going to look at the playtest - it's obvious you consider that experiment wildly successful and are going to shoehorn the exact concepts you think are appropriate to your game world into the rules at a fundamental level. That's not what I use Pathfinder for, so the new edition is effectively useless.

Grand Lodge

Justin Franklin wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:


Listen to the Glass Cannon podcast, Buhlman is converting Crypt of the Everflame on the fly so that tells me all the APs and adventures and Bestiaries are going to still be usable.

Yeah right...

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Cont'd:

* Backgrounds -I've only seen these be prescriptive. I disliked how they were implemented in DnD5e. They were bland and sometimes counter-intuitive. Married to the fact your rules will be Golarion-infused, that ins't the most inspiring announcement.

Concur.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am surprised to see so many people excited for this. I must admit that this is the one and only thing I never wanted Paizo to do. It feels like a complete betrayal of why Pathfinder is so popular. And my biggest fear is that they will stop supporting 1st edition at conventions and such. This game was so great because they stuck to their roots. Now we have a 5th edition copy with a different name. I am so disappointed. And I was hoping that eno7gh people agreed with me that it would show up on the boards, but apparently I am in the minority here.


So when they say the alchemist is a core class does that mean the original 11 are still core as well?


Feros wrote:
nighttree wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
I am severely disappointed in Paizo and a little angry. This is exactly why I left D&D.

I feel exactly the same........

Do we know how long 1st edition will be supported for ?
I hope at least Return of the Runelords is still in 1E rules....I was really looking foreword to it....

Return of the Runelords and the AP after it will be the last ones published for 1e, but they ARE 1st editions APs.Paizo has said they won't publish anything new for 1e starting July/August 2019, not this year. This year is just the playtest.

I hope the quality doesn't suffer from focus being diverted to 2E stuff...at least I can get a few more AP's in. Then I guess it's back to making our own adventures after that.


Dragon78 wrote:
So when they say the alchemist is a core class does that mean the original 11 are still core as well?

Yep. Alchemist and goblin are getting promotions to core.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

"Works better than everything that came since then" is major hyperbole and just wrong. If it did, nobody would have bothered to move on from 3.5 <_<

Like, I'm actually feeling very mixed here(I have spend a lot of little money I have) for "1e" products, but if nothing else, I guess year in future there will be finite number of them so I can actually buy all of them

Actually no one truly moved on from 3.5. Many came to Pathfinder BECAUSE it was a 3.75e

It was what 4e D&D SHOULD have been, I would argue.

The fact that many of the 3.5 material is very compatible with PF with minimal tweaking made it a very wonderful transition. The only things left in the dust were some of WotC’s classes (like Warlock, for example). It was specifically stated as a PILLAR to Pathfibdwr’s foundations.

Now they want to abandon it. And everyone who came on board with it with something more akin to 5th edition D&D than to Pathfinder 1e.

I’d rather play 5e D&D.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Olorin_Plane_Walker wrote:

To all those who say "you can still play 1e if 2e doesn't appeal to you" that's obvious, but that's not the point.

Look at it this way, do you think it would be more fun to play in & be a part of the currently supported system, or would you rather be left behind in the dust?

No one voluntarily wants to play an "outdated" system & you can hardly blame them for voicing any displeasure they have towards that. Long time Pathfinder fans should know this better then anyone, considering PF's origins...

Not necessarily true; depends on the group. I'm in one group that is playing Basic. Another group that is playing PFS a lot so that means that if we want to continue we have to use 2e (which may or may not happen since there is a huge money investment in 1e - of course if they provide conversion guides that make 1e stuff legal...). Yet another group that is using PF but is running a bunch of converted 1e and 2e modules - this group isn't going to move any time fast. And a completely separate group running WEG SW - this is definitely not new.

Just because a group isn't playing the most current system doesn't mean they can't have fun.

And you can easily, and have a lot of fun doing it, voluntarily play "outdated" systems. Here's a tip... they are just as much fun as any "updated" system, and sometimes more so if you have a connection to them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So I go to sleep early with a bad head cold and wake up to this! Man, I knew it had to be coming some time soon, but wow!

I have mixed feelings as do many on the site. I'm looking over at my 1e AD&D Monster Manual that I got back in 1981 as I type this and think of all the evolutions of the game in the decades since that I have bought into. It has been a life long hobby that has brought me countless hours of enjoyment. Yet each edition change has always been accompanied by a little sadness by what is being left behind.

What comforts me is the insistence of Jason Buhlman that character creation will still involve a lot of choices and customization. It is without a doubt the greatest strength of the current system and I hope they have been able to transfer that aspect into the new game. I remain cautiously optimistic going forward.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Just please, don't give the license to Devir at Brazil. They has Pathfinder First Edition for years and released only the Core Rulebook and Bestiary in portuguese in 2015... There is no news or any respect for the fans.

We have a lot of qualified publishers that could do a excellent work in Pathfinder Second Edition. Please, look how Devir treated PF1 and don't sell PF2 to them in Brazil. In almost 10 years of PF1, just two books translated/released...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:


This is the natural evolution of a RPG business. Games are released, and then expanded and improved upon for several years. They eventually reach the natural end of their lifespan, and are then reborn in a new edition. That is the business model of RPG publishing companies, as is has always been, and as it will remain in the future.

Yes it is a standard business mode of a game company; doesn't matter if its video games, etc.

Doesn't mean it isn't a cash grab - because it is, as you pointed out. So they need to admit to that, and not try and cover it up in their FAQ about the company is doing great.

I don't know that game rules have a lifespan. If they did, then people would just stop playing them. But people still play old rules. And often pick up those rules and do new things with them (i.e. OSR rebirth to some degree).

Does the end come with the current publisher no longer wishes to put time and effort into it? Yeah. But its not like a hardware change (or security concerns, etc) is making the current game rules no longer viable.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is also that 3.5 and pathfinder by extension has a looooooooooooot of flaws(if 4e had been more like 5e from the start, I don't think pathfinder would exist. 4e's problem was that it went from roleplaying game to mostly tactical board game) <_< Its pretty much system where you need to house rule certain things and devs weren't releasing erratas for old stuff, so house cleaning it with new edition DOES make sense even if I personally find it annoying.

Silver Crusade

20 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like crying. Something very precious to me may be in the process of being lost.

Personally, I see no need for a second edition. There may be such a thing as 'bloat,' but it would take another two decades or so to reach that point. Newer is often not better (probably only about 1/2 the time), and things do _not_ need to change just for the sake of change. Complexity is not a problem, it is Pathfinder's greatest virtue.

I do, however, understand that a second edition may be necesssary for Paizo as a company, and I'm OK with that idea.

However, from the descriptions provided, the changes are almost all in the wrong direction. They mostly mirror changes that were made in Starfinder, and I did not enjoy them there. I don't buy into the martial-caster disparity myth, so any attempt to 'fix' that means unbalancing the game. Iterative attacks are one of my favorite things in the game, and I don't enjoy playing a martial character until level 6, when they enter. The different types of actions are not confusing, they just need to be clarified as you can always take a 'smaller' action in the place of a 'larger' action. I love the stat booster items, and don't want to lose them. Deciding for a level 10 character whether to boost one stat further or boost several stats a little is one of the fun ways to customize a character. Starfinder's way of building monsters badly breaks believability for me. Far too many of the previewed changes seem intended to reduce the complexity that is what I enjoy so much.

However, I'm not storming off. I am going to participate in the play-test. I will stay around as long as I continue to have fun, even if that fun is despite the new rules, not because of them. There are two reasons for this: the community I've found here, and the way Paizo is handling the change. I feel like they are being far more respectful of their customers than has happened in previous changes. I'm expecting a very bumpy ride, but I'm coming with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
There is also that 3.5 and pathfinder by extension has a looooooooooooot of flaws(if 4e had been more like 5e from the start, I don't think pathfinder would exist. 4e's problem was that it went from roleplaying game to mostly tactical board game) <_< Its pretty much system where you need to house rule certain things and devs weren't releasing erratas for old stuff, so house cleaning it with new edition DOES make sense even if I personally find it annoying.

honestly, that's nothing that a couple of Unchained books wouldn't have accomplished also, without pissing off the customers who came to Paizo EXACTLY BECAUSE it was 3.x.

That way, new content (modules, adventures, APs) would still be available to us without the need to adapt to a new system that from the little we know so far seems like everything I personally do not want a RPG system to be


3 people marked this as a favorite.

With Starfinder being the fastest selling Paizo product ever, this is hardly surprising.

Key paragraph is:

We've also seen how a more approachable Core Rulebook can serve as an easier entry point for the game and the hobby, both in our own Starfinder RPG, and in rulebooks made by other companies in the decade since we launched Pathfinder. We decided that we weren't satisfied with our least user-friendly book being the entry point to our game, so we started tinkering with a series of changes aimed at not just updating the game, but making it much, much better.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Barachiel Shina wrote:
What I want, as a VALUED customer, is for them to continue making 1e PF products alongside Starcraft and 2e. Even if the production is slower, I’ll accept it. Better than nothing and being abandoned like D&D likes to keep doing to its base(s).

What if the production is like the past few months, e.g. Ultimate Wilderness?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alynthar42 wrote:
So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.

Unless there's some information I've been missing, that's assuming a lot about a system we haven't seen yet.

I am with you on liking skill points - I like that my wizard can be an expert in a specific field of Knowledge while still dabbling in many others, for example. But there's not a lot to suggest that proficiency in Pathfinder means the same thing it does in D&D yet.

And even if the system doesn't work the way you want, that's part of what the playtest is for. Remember that the original draft of the Pathfinder RPG had little in the way of skill customization, but reaction from playtesters caused Paizo to shift toward the existing skill system.

Quote:
But worse than the mechanic itself, is the message sent by its inclusion. Pathfinder players have, for years, been openly derisive of the proficiency mechanic. It's one of the most commonly hated aspects of 5e. Paizo knows this- those discussions happen largely on their boards. But they have decided to completely ignore the fact that PF players despise this mechanic and implement it anyway. This says, in very clear terms, "We are more interested in courting 5e players than in satisfying our existing customers and fanbase. The opinions of our current customers matter less than the potential profit that we think we can get by stealing that element from 5e." I've been a loyal customer and player for 8 years now. I've bought products from them solely to support the corporation because I liked their material. But my opinions are less important than their desire to attract D&D players.

Other than the fact that I disagree that this message is being sent in the first place, I don't think it's wise to assume that vocal response on a forum is indicative of the majority of fans. We're going to see a lot of people voicing their opinions very frequently and vocally throughout this playtest, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually part of a majority.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
a series of changes aimed at not just updating the game, but making it much, much better.

this is what 'm not buying at all. I've seen the 'changes' they made to the system to make it 'better' with Starfinder already and the Starfinder CRB ist the most disappointing product Paizo came up with since the Mythic rules. They incorporated the 'lessons they've learned for the last decade' there and I can't say the result is enjoyable.

Yes, Starfinder might sell at the moment. But it fills the void of a SciFi/Fantasy RGP so the theme of SF might have more to do with the selling numbers than the ruleset


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I almost never post on here - the last time I made a non-AP post was when Pathfinder was first announced, and what I said was 'You have my money!'

The reason I whole-heartedly backed Pathfinder, and have bought every hardback, AP, and adventure for it, is that it was Dungeons & Dragons by another name in a way that 4e wasn't. 4e didn't deserve the name of Dungeons & Dragons and neither does 5e - they are an entirely different game that has no continuity with basic / 1e / 2e/ 3.0 / 3.5 - and that is in terms of feel, playstyle, whatever - the rules dont 'feel' right.

So that's my plea for PF2e - change whatever you like, but don't lose the feel baked into the game's DNA. I have been playing 'real' D&D in whatever guise for 30+ years now, and I don't want to stop.

I love Paizo. I love the respect that you have for your customers, and the quality of your products and storytelling. I truly don't understand some of the quite vicious negativity that I see on these boards; its the reason I don't play PFS.

I get that 10 years is a long time in this industry without a refresh, and I agree that one is needed. I'm cautiously optimistic about PF2e, and if I don't like it, I have probably another 15 years of content from PF1e still to play, and I thank you for that.

For what its worth, I also have some minor observations based on what has been revealed so far:

- Please keep the maths 'on show' rather than invisible to the players/GM; thats a major part of what makes a game 'D&D' for us

- Please dont oversimplify. Some of my players have been cheating on me and playing in a 5e game, and just last night they said that what they preferred about Pathfinder was the vast array of customisable options. 5e is simplistic to the point of feeling like a board game. Its just flat.

- We love Starfinder. We like the revised action economy, so the changes in PF2e to action economy sound good to us. We like the 'scalable' weapons in Starfinder, but thats in a SciFi setting; we're not so sure that will 'feel' right in a Fantasy setting.

- We hate the Starfinder Archetypes. Please don't do that in PF2e -
class based variations are what we love about PF. We quite like Themes though; the suggestions of what options to put together to create a specific type of character are good - we effectively use them in the way we use some of the more vanilla Pathfinder Archetypes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:

Just please, don't give the license to Devir at Brazil. They has Pathfinder First Edition for years and released only the Core Rulebook and Bestiary in portuguese in 2015... There is no news or any respect for the fans.

We have a lot of qualified publishers that could do a excellent work in Pathfinder Second Edition. Please, look how Devir treated PF1 and don't sell PF2 to them in Brazil. In almost 10 years of PF1, just two books translated/released...

Exactly! Devir is a miserly company, which acquires the licenses just to make them unavailable to other publishers! They bought PFRPG license and, in about 5 years (or more), released the Core Rulebook and Bestiary only. They are not interested in publishing RPG books because they think that it is not profitable enough and, with that, the Brazilian players do not have access to the material in BR-Portuguese! Please grant the Pathfinder Second Edition license to a committed and respectful publishing company! #ForaDevir


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
honestly, that's nothing that a couple of Unchained books wouldn't have accomplished also, without pissing off the customers who came to Paizo EXACTLY BECAUSE it was 3.x.

No. Pathfinder is not "3.x". Pathfinder is Pathfinder, and if I was a betting man, I'd bet that the differences between Pathfinder Second Edition and First Edition are less than the differences between Pathfinder as it is now and D&D Version 3.5 at its end.

Yes, Pathfinder First Edition is a system built upon the original D&D v.3.5 SRD, and there is no reason o assume Second Edition won't be, too.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have rather had more books like Pathfinder Unchained. The Tactical Initiative they were using in the Podcast. That is easily an Unchained Option.

New Options that I can plug in if I want, without invalidating the old stuff.

I don't need a new game, I've already got one that works


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
That's actually all I ask for, now that Paizo screwed us over and told us to go f*** ourselves with our love for a 18 year old system that still works better than everything that came since then.

Seeing how 5e selling dwarfs Paizo right now and dominates the market for 14 quarters in a row, I somehow doubt this pwrsonal opinion of yours can be stated as a fact. Starfinder outselling Pathfinder also hints a clue

I understand why people is upset about changes. But hobestly, hoping PF 2 would never came was pretty naive. 3.0 evolved to 3.5, and 3.5 to PF. It was only a matter of time that PF 2 went out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am super excited for this! I have no problem whatsoever with buying in english, but here in Brazil there is a great demand for those books and the publisher responsible for it is treating consumers like garbage. In 10 years we have only 2 published books. So please, dear Paizo, review other publishers in Brazil for Pathfinder Second Edition. I know it is still very early, but I believe this should be made public soon. PLEASE, do not allow Devir Brasil to have the publishing rights for the second edition, for if that is the case, Brazil won't have Pathfinder Second Edition in the way it deserves! #ForaDevir


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
a series of changes aimed at not just updating the game, but making it much, much better.
this is what 'm not buying at all. I've seen the 'changes' they made to the system to make it 'better' with Starfinder already and the Starfinder CRB ist the most disappointing product Paizo came up with since the Mythic rules.

I'm playing SF right now and I love the changes. So I think you forgot to add a «in my opinion» after the blank stated «fact» of SF being a dissapointing product, because that is, at best, a matter of tastes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please paizo, don't let Devir publish Pathfinder 2 in Brazil. They translated and published only two books in all those years, they do not respect the fans. There are a lot of publishers that can do this job with quality and respect, please dont sell PF2 to Devir in Brazil. #ForaDevir

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can't fix core book with Unchained books though, if you did that, you'd have to tell newcomers "Oh yeah, and you have to get this book as well because it fixes the game"

Anyway, I'm just hoping they won't take this as excuse to re-release all old setting books again and never get detailing some places that still haven't been detailed in CS line :P I wouldn't mind re-releases of 3.5 books, but PF CS line of books don't have lore that would get oudated so would be annoying if we never get more Tian Xia books because they are re-release everything that was released over 10 years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

I do understand the viewpoint of those who feel left behind after having invested a lot of time and money in PF. I think Paizo is doing what they can to not cut them off entirely (keeping PF1 in print) but there's only so much they can do. That's very frustrating for sure.

That said, I think the game was ripe for an update. It had gotten bloated over the years. The additions to the rules have been plagued by the iron rule of diminishing returns. The novel ideas were becoming more and more niche, and less and less worth the added complexity. GMs had to decide on a longer and longer list of variant rule sets to take or reject in their game.

There is also the matter of economics. As a company, Paizo can't afford to simply live off the customer base who came over because they didn't want to jump from 3.5e to 4e. That's an aging demographic (I know, because I'm part of it). The 3.5/4 edition war is ancient history to new players, and can't possibly be a motivation for them. Just because of that, Paizo needs something fresh from time to time. Is every 10 years the right timeframe? I'm not sure. But it's surely not 20 years.

Logan Bonner wrote:
We want to show people new things too, and there are quite a few parts of the rules where we reached for the more extreme version of several options. Then, if people hate it, we can redirect for the final version. The playtest is by no means fully locked in as the final rules.

I 100% approve this approach. The playtest is were you want to take risks, and if they don't pay off, no harm done. Doing this, and saying that you're doing it, is the mark of a company who pays attention to their customers.

I'm looking forward to the playtest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I never understood the hate against 4e and 5e. It just does not gel with me how people can rage so badly at a game. You don't like it? That's fine! At least acknowledge the game! "It doesn't feel like D&D!" What is D&D? Original was literally "dungeon crawl and try to rob monsters of loot," Basic much the same. But the game evolved and began to be more narrative-focused as the years went on because more people joined in and became invested in the game. Saying 4e (or 5e in some people's cases) isn't D&D just makes no sense because 3e certainly does NOT feel like Original or Basic or Advanced D&D! And I remember the massive RAGE people had at it because of that!

Change is not bad! I certainly wish more people had given 4e an actual chance because it was good! And 5e is just crushing it sales wise and play wise (look at the number of games people are looking for it/running it on Roll20 or in numerous gamefinder forums across the net)!

Pathfinder needs to innovate or it will die. Like others have said, the massive rules bloat can make making a character daunting and the massive power discrepancy between spellcasters and martials is just ridiculous! I've had players at my tables quit because the differences in power and I've had players back away from games after looking at the sheer mass of rules the game has. Check out the srd or any other site that has the rules listed and imagine if you were brand new to the hobby and people directed you towards Pathfinder only to see not only 10,000+ rules but errata buried deep in more errata, forums filled with players having to detail ways to make sure your character doesn't fail at what they are supposed to even do and how you NEED 3pp supplements to make certain builds even possible.

Streamline and cut the bloat. There is 0 reason why feats should be so deep just to do one thing, that wizards can make almost any other class useless (and yes, just for fun once I ran an all-wizard party and yes, they summoned in monsters that were better fighters than fights or healed better than a cleric, cast spells that made them sneak better than rogues and more!) and balance the issues that have been yelled about from one end of the internet to the next for the last 18 years!

Bring on Pathfinder 2e, I invite it! If it makes the game even remotely easier to run or play in, then it is both wanted and needed imho.


Invictus Novo wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Where do we sign up for the playtest materials?

It will be free download or you can pre-order a physical book that will cost money. Preorders start on the 20th.

Here, some more info and a good FAQ at the bottom which has these and many more answers. http://paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest

Thank you!


CorvusMask wrote:

You can't fix core book with Unchained books though, if you did that, you'd have to tell newcomers "Oh yeah, and you have to get this book as well because it fixes the game"

And you wouldn't have to, because the CRB works fine as it is. But if you WANT to, you CAN. With the Unchanied books solution Paizo would offer a choice, depending on your tastes and visions of what the game should be, instead of what they are doing now.

There was only ony rule from the first Unchained book that I ever adapted into my games, magic item creation, because it gave me more opportunities to add actual roleplay into the RPG. And at no pint I had to say to the players "Oh yeah, and you have to get this book as well because it fixes the game". All I had to do was to say "and we will use these rules that work THAT way from now on, because I believe it enhances the game"

The action economy in PF2? That's something that could easily be in an Unchained book. "I don't like how action economy works in the CRB, luckily there is an alternative and works like this:"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
I've yet to see a good reason why that step was necessary at all. "People nowadays are too stupid to understand the PF rules" can't be it

It's to sell people a whole new set of books they already own.


I want to go to there. We'll watch for the playtest download!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Releasing optional rules in Unchained books does nothing, they needed to update the rules for everyone, not have it be optional. Fact is as much as we’d like to protest it Pathfinder is dying. 5th is crushing it. I’m hoping this can end in a happy medium where it’s got more customization points than 5th but removes so much of the unnecessary bloat, overly complex rules (maneuvers, bloated feat chains, etc) and power creep that has happened in ten plus years of pathfinder.

For those who are asking that PF one remain the only thing, you’re basically asking Paizo to go out of business. They need to innovate to compete and if you handcuff them with only saying they can innovate in optional books few will buy that wouldn’t fly. They could release a revised core rule book and fix many of those things in a similar manner to unchained and keep it more retroactive, but I’m guessing there is going to be a certain subset of features incompatible with PF1 and it makes more sense to keep them separate products.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Fine as it is" doesn't mean it couldn't be better. For example, its frustrating that power attack is a feat and not just a game mechanic, especially since game math will assume players have it :P

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

First, thanks to the Paizo team for all of your hard work. I know you are trying to bring us the best game you can.

I am not someone who was looking forward to this - what others see as bloat, I see as a wide variety of options. But I understand that the core rules are old and were built from a different system and are hard to update any other way.

I spent last night paging through the sections of Pathfinder Unchained I never paid much attention to before (i.e., everything other than unchained classes, skill unlocks, and background skills), and found a lot of what we're hearing about the playtest rules already there - 3 act combat rounds? Check! Automatic bonus progression? Check!

Some of what I saw sounds fine, and I know that 2E is going to just be more than expanding Unchained into the new Core Rulebook. I'm not excited about waiting for my favorite non-core classes to be ported over to 2E, or about the new way of building monsters and NPCs. I have 6 bestiaries sitting on my shelf, so I'm not looking forward to starting over with Bestiary 1 again - but at least it sounds like conversion will be easy.

This answer in the FAQ has me concerned, though:

Playtest FAQ wrote:

Does the new version of Pathfinder find a better balance between spellcasters and martial characters?

We certainly hope so. Many of the changes made to the game attempt to address this issue by adding versatility and power to martial characters. At the same time, spells have been redesigned to ensure that they are of the right power when first acquired, but diminish in utility over time, giving spellcasters the tools they need to contribute, while giving other characters a chance to shine with their abilities. Ultimately, we need you to tell us how well we have solved this issue. That is what playtesting is all about!

First, I have managed to ignore most of the caster/martial threads here over the last few years, but I just don't believe that this is a problem that needed solving. PF1 has enough options that even full martials have ways at high levels to bend reality and control the battlefield if they need to, while still hitting things really hard.

But even if it were a problem that needed solving, please, please, please do NOT solve it with the Limited Magic system from Unchained. That's what the FAQ answer sounds like, and limiting spells like magic items in PFS - always cast at the minimum caster level, and always with the DC based on the minimum needed casting stat - doesn't expand my choices, it harshly narrows them. When I'm playing a wizard, I want to have to choose between being as powerful as I can be at level 1, and having some social skills and being able to carry a backpack without dealing with heavy encumbrance. My ability score choices should matter from the start, and when they increase - either because I have invested in a Clothing of Increased Statistic or because of automatic bonus progression - there should be some actual benefit from that. Same for leveling up.

The rogue gets better at roguing when her Dexterity goes up and when she gains experience, the barbarian gets better at AM SMASHING when her Strength goes up. Wizards should mess up your reality better when they get smarter and better at wizarding, too. Clerics should be able to draw on more of their god's divine power when they get wiser. Bards should be able to charm the pants off the BBEG better with more Charisma.

I hope I'm wrong about this being an adaptation of Limited Magic, and I will be sure to participate in the playtest and submit feedback in case I'm not.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Releasing optional rules in Unchained books does nothing, they needed to update the rules for everyone, not have it be optional.

I strongly disagree. With not making it optional, they pissed off the very core of players that came to Paizo during the 3.5 diaspora who will now look for a 3rd party to fill the void.

Arakasius wrote:


there is going to be a certain subset of features incompatible with PF1

therefore killing backwards compatibility rendering all future APs useless for those of us sticking with the old edition. Not the wisest of decisions

Arakasius wrote:
removes so much of the unnecessary bloat

you call it bloat, I call it options. Right now I have a choice using/allowing certain rulesystems, classes etc. in PF. Getting rid of it in PF2, I would have no choice any longer if I decided to switch system.


Mark Seifter wrote:
(Takes the time to personally reply to a customer with only a modest buy-in on the first edition of Pathfinder - that is, RickDias - and points out ways to make my fairly specific character concept work in 2E)

You just secured a preorder for 2E, the core book at the very least. I'm willing to give this a shot. Thank you!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
I don't think it's wise to assume that vocal response on a forum is indicative of the majority of fans. We're going to see a lot of people voicing their opinions very frequently and vocally throughout this playtest, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually part of a majority.

I recommend that Paizo implement some way of taking a survey of the community in such a way that each of us only gets one vote. Or even each subscriber gets a vote - doesn't really matter to me. I just would like them to get some kind of feel for what we as a community think, rather than just hearing the most vocal 1%. (and if they choose to ignore some of that input, well, at least they are doing so from an informed position instead of a position of ignorance).

601 to 650 of 1,608 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: First Look at the Pathfinder Playtest All Messageboards